Consideration of a Contract with Plavchak Construction Company, Inc.
On August 13, 2013, the Commission awarded a contract to Plavchak Construction Company, Inc. for the pool project for the base bid and Alternate 3. The Municipality received a bid protest from Waller Construction regarding Alternate 3. After review of the protest, the Municipality has decided to rescind the original award, not include Alternate 3, and award the contract on the basis of the base bid only.
Recommended Action: Move to authorize (i) the rescinding of the August 13, 2013 contract award to Plavchak Construction Company, Inc. and (ii) the award of the base bid only to Plavchak Construction Company, Inc.
The original award included Alternate 3. See August 13, 2013 Agenda
Contract No. 1. General Construction WorkThis is a good start. Don't stop there, Commissioners. It is waaaay over budget.
Low bidder: Plavchak Construction Company, Inc.
Base Bid: $1,490,800
Alternate 3 - Subsurface drainage at east end of deck: $119,100
Subtotal: $1,609,900
August 27, 2013 9:15 PM This item was removed from the agenda. http://mtlebanon.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1815
73 comments:
The Commission and municipal Management are quickly catching the Board in careless wasteful spending.
The project as awarded last week was $986,000 OVER BUDGET ! Someone please explain what the enormous monetary penalty was and how it came to be that allegedly "forced" the Commission to approve this totally mismanaged boondoggle on August 13 ?
There needs to be an independent investigation of this travesty by those with police powers.
Tar Feathers, and Rope
Kudos to whoever got the ball rolling to stop this absurd expenditure!
I'm tired of hearing people snicker when I tell them where I live.
This comment was under the sidewalk policy thread, but I thought it should be cross posted here.
"Mr. Kendrick,
Integrity and common sense are missing at the municipality. The swimming pool contract has a $150,000 penalty clause against the municipality if they dId not award the contract to the bidder. Our elected representatives were not told about the penalty until the meeting where they had to vote. Your commissioner voted to accept a cost overrun of more than three tines the penalty. That is poor government at its finest.
We need a manager to babysit the commissioners, an adult to babysit the Manager, and the individual who put the penalty clause in the contract should be FIRED IMMEDIATELY, and the swimming pool contract should be TOTALLY DUMPED!!!!!!!!!!!!"
$150,000 penalty if the contract is not awarded to the bidder? Is that legal?
Elaine
How can there be a penalty if there was no contract? The lack of common sense among the uniformed anon commenters never ceases to amaze me. Get a grip folks.
Dave Franklin
Dave, your stupidity is showing once again. Before you put your foot in your mouth once again, deal with facts. I know its difficult for you to do so when it comes to anything dealing with recreation, but talk to your good buddy Brumfield.
The Commission on August 13 approved the original bids, the award of contracts to the five multiple prime bidders and a project cost in the amount of $4,285,000 to be paid for with the ($4,500,000) bond issue (of January, 3013). They did so because there was apparently a provision in the contracts or a side letter agreement that the Municipality would incur a penalty cost (allegedly over $100,000) if the bids and contract were not approved or were rejected on August 13 and the project had to go out for rebid. The Commission also undoubtedly recognized that rebidding would likely result in even higher bids as well because of the time delay coupled with a Municipal fixed requirement that the project completion must occur no later than May 15, 2014.
Mme. Moderator: As with the SB's claim that the superintendent is doing his job well, here is another example of local leadership failing to advise the citizens of the specific facts that may (or may not) support the decisions they take.
While not commenting on the merits of bidder complaints, I do wonder, not about the manager not controlling the commissioners, but conversely how it is that the commissioners do not exercise their proper duties to oversee the effectiveness of the manager. Starting with the public safety building fiasco, through the TOD abyss, on to the pool project, I see no examples of Mr. Feller's grasp of the municipality's interests, nor of his mastery of the oversight/management or project acceptance process, nor of any sign of the acceptance responsibility for how well or poorly things are done when authorized or directed by the commission.
Indeed, for example, I take it that Santa Clause was responsible for the construction flaws in the public safety building, for which no contractor responsibility was ever established and for which no financial remedy was had. Certainly the project management oversight, and the pre-acceptance inspection(s) should have corrected undesirable conditions as they arose. Let alone the fact that contracts were put up for approval without adequate management review for such items as contractor financial responsibility, or the municipality's right to redress errors, omissions, or shortcomings in the work.
It is very strange how each of our commissioners privately acknowledge the manager's shortcomings of performance, even going so far as to say that they "personally" each think he should not continue to serve, but somehow they never seem to do anything about it. How very peculiar to the man from mars looking down at all of this.
Perhaps such are the benefits of one-party governance.
The Swamp Fox
Mme. Moderator: Not to pick at nits (or nitwits), but it is mildly amusing that our constant companion in the uncritical acclaim of local politicians -- who would be Mr. David Franklin --objects to "uniformed" anonymous comments. This seems frivolous to me. Why bother with such a comment, which is itself lacking in common sense. It further strikes me that Mr. Franklin may have published a non sequiter, in that "uniformed" implies identified, hence precluding "anonymous." I think we might correctly surmise that he meant "uninformed" - but it is the kind of off-point and inconsequential messaging error that he wishes, and apparently needs, to be forgiven for when he tries to make a point. He might be as charitable to his neighbors, including Mr. Kendall, to whom Mr. Franklin ought to apologize (did he ever apologize to you, Mme. Moderator?).
It is just fun to read the supercilious entries that some people seem to make a hobby of posting. Get a grip, Mr. Franklin -- if you want to criticize others it might help if you did not make obvious and foolish mistakes yourself in the process. Grow up, Mr. Franklin and join those who are merely seeking accountability from those charged with administering our community affairs. These threads are not about your opportunity to condescend to those you think are intellectually beneath you, they are about finding the heartbeat and concerns of our fellow citizens.
The Swamp Fox
At the last meeting, Mr./Ms. Swamp Fox, I called for the manager's resignation for condoning municipal money going toward a school district field while we have an aging infrastucture.
Thank you, 11:04 PM.
Elaine
Mme. Moderator: It is always a privilege and a pleasure, if not a social obligation, to support so gallant and diligent defender of the public interest as yourself. Without the First Amendment, and courageous journalists like you who are willing to exercise its sacred privileges, we would not be a democracy.
It is I, and the entire community, who should thank you, Mme. Moderator. So again I say, "thank you."
The Swamp Fox
*infrastructure.
Mr./Ms. Swamp Fox, on that note, I am signing off. Thanks!
Elaine
Mme. Moderator: It would appear that Mr. Franklin may have retired for the evening. It would be a civic service if he, and his methods, retired from our struggling community's civic conversation. I personally would miss his biting wit, his finger tip command of all the facts, and his clear, incisive analysis of why anyone with a contrary opinion is a buffoon. Perhaps his mother neglected to teach him to be nice.
I guess I should be grateful that we apparently need not deal with his ungraciousness again until the morrow.
The Swamp Fox
If there is a contract or letter agreement that suggests that there is $100,000 penalty for failing to award a contract, I'm sure Elaine will try to obtain it through a right to know request. I'm also pretty confident that she will never post such a document on this blog, because it doesn't exist. I repeat, get a grip.
Dave Franklin
11:04, if you're interested in dealing with facts, please answer this question: if no contract was awarded, who would enforce the penalty provision that you claim exists? I can't wait to hear your factual response.
Dave Franklin
Sir Swamp, you're irrelevant. But I think you probably already know that.
Dave Franklin
Dave at 11:54 PM, I am planning to see how the meeting goes tomorrow. If there is litigation, my RTK request would be denied. But you probably knew that already.
Elaine
Dave, go ask your buddy the lawyer Brumfield who voted for the pool contracts while referring to the penalty clause.
Mr. Franklin, did it ever occur to you that you might be barking up the wrong tree? Your fight is not here with Elaine, Swamp Fox, Kendrick or any of the dozen, no wait five, uh maybe four... what do you call them, "wingnuts?"
Your odds of getting the field(s) you desire would vastly improve if there wasn't so much waste and overspending!
Lets take the pool renovation for example. The commission proposes to spend $3.5 millinon, and before we know it through add-ons and high bids it goes $900,000 over budget. There goes the $875,000 in unused funds you were counting on for turf.
The school district pretty much promised a renovation "under" $100,000,000. Did they deliver?
Elaine, on the other hand promises and continues to maintain a FREE information source and blog. Where you Mr. Franklin or anyone else is free to offer opinions and suggestions.
Your fight Mr. Franklin is not here, but with your representatives and public servants that aren't providing the best bang for the buck.
Oh by the way. I drove past that highly overused Mellon Field at 4 different times yesterday. A beautiful cool and sunny Saturday. Not only were there no organized sports, but no pick up games, nothing. Empty for the whole day.
Mme. Moderator: Well, well, a response, of sorts from the distinguished Mr. Franklin. A bit snippy, but that is to be expected.
I would only note for Mr. Franklin's benefit that "irrelevance" is a conclusion that adds no insight as to his notion of "relevance" or the facts. Perhaps it is one more exasperated expression of the fact that he cannot dictate public opinion -- and he cannot silence those who question his favorite politicians.
Along the way, I would rather be "irrelevant" than stuck with the bankruptcy of our community on my conscience.
The Swamp Fox
9:26, you must be a very heavy sleeper. Youth football practice started at Mellon at 8 AM yesterday and ran until sometime after Noon. The younger kids had practice at Hoover. If you would like me to send you a few pictures, please let me know. Football practice starts at 12:30 today if you'd like to mark your calendar for a drive by. We'll be at Mellon until about 5:00. The younger kids will still be at Hoover. I think there will also be a baseball practice at Jefferson Pony around noon today if you're conducting another tour. And to round it out, a number of Fall ball teams practiced on Middle, Dixon and Wildcat (which also hosted a softball game). Had you been thinking 9:26, you could have stopped and supported the boy's tennis team who held a car wash at Dixon most of the day.
Your comment, and the nonsense about a penalty clause in the swimming pool contract, are perfect examples of why I come back to this blog. It irritates me to no end that nameless posters continue to throw out misinformation about the township and use this vehicle to do so.
As it relates to the so called "penalty", I'm pretty certain that all of you will discover that the penalties that were being referred to at the last meeting were liquidated damages that the CONTRACTOR (not Lebo) would have to pay if they were not done on time. In other words, if the contract had not been awarded so as to ensure completion of the project on the schedule stated in the bid documents, Lebo would've been unable to assess liquidated damages AGAINST the contractor. By awarding the contract at the last meeting, they presumably preserved that potential remedy for the community.
If someone has anything to the contrary to offer, I'm certainly willing to listen. Up until this point, all of you claim to have all of the facts, but none of you have shared them with this audience.
Dave Franklin
Again making assumptions for effect, eh Mr. Franklin. I'm not a heavy sleeper, just had no reason to drive by Mellon at 8 am, so knock off your bombastic rhetoric.
I did drive by the field at around 1:30 or so (sorry didn't log the time), again around 4 pm, then again at 5 and 7:30 pm. At those times there were no lines of people waiting to use the field, no one packing up to leave and no kids playing catch, tag or anything else.
So now, Mr. Franklin, I must pay to have my car wash by boys tennis otherwise I don't think. Is that your game? I can think of countless charity events that weren't graced by your presence. Shall we ask Elaine to start a poll titled "Where's Franklin!" that way we can monitor how many boxes of Girl Scout cookies you've bought, Cancer, Vet, Alzheimer, Church, Homeless, Battered Women, charity events you've attended.
Get over yourelf, Mr. Franklun.
Mme. Moderator: Mr. Franklin insists that he is the open-minded one here, while the rest of us claim a monopoly on "facts." You might forgive me if I think he is projecting his own psychological shortcomings onto others. This is an open discussion, in which only he claims a monopoly on "facts."
Nonetheless, if the 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, vanishing number of us are all irrelevant anyway, why does he even bother? Hmm, I guess they say that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. He must believe that.
Still no apologies from Mr. Franklin, Esquire--despite his continuing tirade of personal insults to all who do not "yes" him.
The Swamp Fox
Bombastic rhetoric?
"Oh by the way. I drove past that highly overused Mellon Field at 4 different times yesterday. A beautiful cool and sunny Saturday. Not only were there no organized sports, but no pick up games, nothing. Empty for the whole day."
Those were your words 10:34, not mine. You were clearly trying to make some silly broadsweeping point about youth sports, parents, field space, etc. And you failed. Failed miserably actually.
The anonymous commenters on this site love to talk about accountability. Right back at you.
Dave Franklin
The point being Mr. Franklin, you consistantly claim that we don't have enough fields, but driving by them or using them to play catch/batting practice with the kids it was a rare day when we couldn't find an open field in Mt. Lebanon.
Dave, those who sign their names also love to talk about accountability.
It was nice to see you and the Mrs. at Market District yesterday. The Mrs. was able to look me straight in the eye, something you are unable to do.
Elaine
I agree with you 10:57, we don't have a shortage of baseball fields. In fact, that point has been consistently made for the last several years. That's also the reason why were converting Brafforton to a multipurpose field. I guess we shouldn't worry it though because for the last year or so Ellaine has been telling me that turf is a done deal. I sure hope she's right.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin, you got me, I should have sad your "heavily overused" field appeared to be vacant for 7, 8 or more hours on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. I stand corrected.
Now apollogize for calling me a heavy sleeper and a non-thinker.
Mr. Franklin, according to the agreement with our newly hired Capital Campaign Coordinator and for many working stiffs in provate industry 7.5 hours on any given day is a whole day.
So technically yeah you'fe right, i was wrong in making a broad statement.
But tell you what, its a helluva sight more accurate than your figures on the total cost of ownership for a rurfed and lighted field!
OK Mr. Franklin, we've finally hit on something we can agree on, there are enough ballfields.
I will agree with you that due to changing would we call them demoggraphics, kids are playing more soccer and lacrosse., so maybe we should be reconfiguring fields to accommodate the shift ininterest.
Do it, reline Mellon, Brafferton or Jefferson with an emphasis towards lacrosse or soccer.
My position is at this time with the HS, the pool, insufficient storm sewers, detrriorating sidewalks and streets, unfunded pensions, overpaid public servants and two useless land purchases we can't afford turf and lights.
Fogure out away to unload Twin Hills and McNeilly and I'd be inclined to maybe not fully support your turf but not stand in a ration plan to do it. That and stand with us when we're critical of the municipality not delivering on the pool at $3.5 million.
I'm tired of the commission/boards attitudes of hell what's another million dollars here, another million there.
Mr. Franklin, wasn't one of the road blocks in developing McNeilly due to the fact that the Convenant wouldn't let a backstop infringe a few feet into their unused property?
I've heard rumors to that affect.
For what we paid to purchase two properities in the hitherlands, we could have purchesed the vacant woods behind the Castle Shannon Post Office which look large enough for a soccer/lacrosse venue.
Highly visible, in closee proximaty to several Lebo businesses and empty ones like Pub and Pizza it would have been a worthy investment for keeping home values high and supporting small businesses.
No we had to rush in and buy land that serves very few and doesn't even look like it belongs to MTL.
Mt. Lebanon's significant senior citizen crowd needs to start begging for some fields of their own!
Maybe then some of the powers-that-be will realize how they have shortchanged many residents.
Dave at 11:34 PM, gee, I did not figure those self centered sidewalk people or those selfish flood victims would be so demanding or entitled. The nerve of them to go against turf. Now, we have the swimming people, who aren't even members of your Sports Advisory Board spending the entire Rec Bond! Yes, we have the whole community running amuck, except those Ward 4 dogs on leashes in Williamsburg Park.
So what to do about that crazy contract for the swimming pool? Stay tuned for another episode of Feller's Follies.
Elaine
Sorry. I meant 11:34 AM, Dave.
Elaine
Mme. Moderator: It is a shame that no thoughtful and respectful dialogue comes from any advocate of the municipality's policies (where are the commissioners--absent like SB members whenever there are questions or open discussion. It is a real shame the rest of us are incapable of learning by listening uncritically to propaganda and rhetoric, with a seasoning of name-calling.
Oh, while speaking of irrelevancy, it is obvious that Mr. Franklin is the one to whom his favorite politicians pay the least attention as they have taken every available resource to meet his social demands and spent them elsewhere---how's that for "irrelevant" Mr. Franklin?
You might get more sympathy if you were nice. I believe you owe several apologies, which would be a good place to begin, Mr. Franklin, Esquire.
The Swamp Fox
Stay tuned, Swamp Thing. Stay tuned.
Dave Franklin
Getting back to the original subject of this thread, the Municipality posts the following information concerning tomorrow's meeting: Move to authorize (i) the rescinding of the August 13, 2013 contract award to Plavchak Construction Company, Inc. and (ii) the award of the base bid only to Plavchak Construction Company, Inc. Elaine posts a comment from an anonymous source, stating, "The swimming pool contract has a $150,000 penalty clause against the municipality if they dId (did) not award the contract to the bidder." Mr. Franklin then posts, "How can there be a penalty if there was no contract?."
I see two problems here right off the bat: 1)the contract is not available on the municipality's website; if it was the public could easily look it over and determine whether the aforementioned penalty clause exists, and 2)how can Mr. Franklin say that there can be no penalty if there was no contract? - unless he is speaking in broad legal terms and was not addressing the contract awarded to Plavchak Construction Company, Inc. After all, Mt. Lebanon states very clearly that they are going to vote to rescind a contract with an add-on and award the base bid to the same company; therefore a contract exists.
It seems to me the question is not whether Mt. Lebanon awarded a contract to Plavchak (you can't take back what you never gave!) - it is whether there was a rescission penalty of 150 large! Only those with access to the contract can answer that question; although, like Elaine, I too wonder about the legality of such a thing. Perhaps Mr. Franklin, Mr. Marion, or one of our anonymous lawyers can explain.
Oh we will, Dave baby!
A. Wingnut
Mme. Moderator: Behold how our learned colleague, Mr. Franklin, Esquire, now responds to requests for civility with ambiguous threats! The rapier wit of the instant retort must not have been honed too recently.
The Swamp Fox
aha, Sargent Garcia, we note that you are indeed "thinking" about apologizing, so let me make it easier for you by offering my apology for taking your comment as a veiled threat when in fact I now understand that you are preparing appropriately elaborate and complete apologies---perhaps we should keep it simple, one general apology for 'Tude might suffice (it certainly would surprise)!
perhaps i refer to the wrong sargent, it was Shultz, was it not (of "Hogans Heroes" fame) who used to roll us in the aisles with his refrain "I am thinking! I am thinking!" So, it appears is our esteemed Mr. Franklin, Esquire.
The Swamp Fox
Mme. Moderator: I would like to offer my sympathy to Mr. Gideon as Mr. Franklin, Esquire, seems to taunt him by merely insulting him or ignoring him. The problem is that Mr. Franklin, Esquire's self-proclaimed superiority does not permit him to stoop to Mr. Gideon's search for factual information, logical analysis, and legal expertise.
I do have one technical question, though, for Mr. Franklin, Esquire---given the critical shortage of time on the playing fields of our local oxford: why on this perfect summer Sunday afternoon is he reading and writing blog comments in his dark den? At least I am outside, in the sun, enjoying the company of well educated Mt. Lebanites, all of whom are very much enjoying the repartee because Mr. Franklin is so highly informative with a great talent for entertaining while enlightening we troglodites. I lift a toast to you, Sir Esquire, as you clearly are leading us to the best days our little Camelot will ever know. Thank you, Sir!
The Swamp Fox
Mr. Gideon, anonymous posters have suggested that the municipality would have faced a penalty had it NOT awarded the contract on August 13. Under that theory, one must assume that one or more of the bidders would have had a CONTRACTUAL right to impose the penalty even though NO contract was ever awarded. Where on earth would the bidders have received that right? Of course, none of the anonymous posters have offered any explanation.
As I've indicated on this thread, I believe that the commissioners awarded the contract to preserve the project schedule and to preserve the municipality's right to recover liquidated damages from the contractor if it doesn't finish on time. That's the "penalty" that was discussed at the meeting and that's motivated the decision to move ahead with the contract - not to mention that the project would have had to be rebid, which would have also created more expense (and more delay) for the municipality.
I don't think there is a penalty associated with rescinding the contract and reissuing it to the same contractor. According to the agenda, the plan is to rescind the contract and immediately reissue it to the same contractor without Alternate #3. Alternate #3 will probably be rebid. Given the nature of that work, it can probably be rebid without impacting the project schedule.
Dave Franklin
Elaine, it seems you have multiple Swamp Foxes. You must be thrilled.
Dave Franklin
Mme. Moderator: I know not why, but I must with deepest appreciation acknowledge that Mr. Franklin has finally spoken with a professional voice, taking seriously the concern of his brother, Mr. Gideon.
It is a pleasant change of voice and finally a constructive addition to our conversation to learn of the analytical basis for his doubt of his neighbor's view.
The hall monitors were a good idea, Mme. Moderator.
The Swamp Fox
Yes, Mr. Franklin. Foxes, like Left-leaning "Liberals" (who are in practice anything but), are social animals, much like beagles if you fancy dogs. The problem for those who you support is that we breed, we multiply--and most importantly, WE VOTE.
The Swamp Fox
Lighten up Fox(es). You're still irrelevant.
Dave Franklin
Mme. Moderator: We leave it to our blog colleagues to judge as to whether The Swamp Fox is irrelevant (if that matters), or, whether Mr. Franklin may have modified his "tude after standing at the other end of the rapier (and rap on we shall)....................
The Swamp Fox(es)
How do you figure Mr. Franklin there are multiple Swamp Foxes? Besides that, so what if there are?
I'm also curious of your suggestion that Alternate #3 will be rebid. Sounds like a shell game or something more sinister. How can any company possibly be cheaper than the winner of the base bid that will have their employees and equipment already onsite?
Sounds like a big circle jerk allowing for change orders and responsibilty excuses for delays and added expense.
Mme. Moderator: We can;t resist that last taunt from Mr. Franklin---to whom we say: and you still watch your friends spend whatever public money they can tax, borrow, or otherwise find on anything but your dearest pet projects---so who is playing the fool here, Mr. Franklin? (no apology required as it is a figure of speech in the common parlance)
The Swamp Fox(es)
Like I said earlier Fox 4:51, stay tuned.
Dave Franklin
Mme. Moderator: Just when we thought he might be in remission, our Mr. Franklin, Esquire, resumes the posture of the nasty maker of veiled threats. But, they do say you can't teach an old dog new tricks, or that a leopard never changes his spots. Disappointing, Mr. Franklin, Esquire, just when we thought you might actually be entering the discussion.
Good luck with later, we have better things to do than worry about what you may come up with in reply, given sufficient time.
The Swamp Fox
Oh crap, thanks to your 4:51 comment Mr. Fox, everytime I read a Frabklin response this song starts playing in my head:
"Day after day
Alone on a hill
The man with the foolish grin
Is keeping perfectly still
But nobody wants to know him
They can see that he's just a fool
And he never gives an answer...
The fool on the hill..."
Mr. Franklin:
Thanks for the reply. My take is that the anonymous poster(s) are saying that the penalty refers to an amount of money the Municipality would have to pay Plavchak if it, the Municipality, was to rescind the contract, and that language is in the contract prepared by the Municipality as the result of negotiations with Plavchak. If I understand you, it is your take that anonymous posters are saying that the Municipality would have "faced a penalty had it NOT awarded the contract on August 13." If I were to argue from that premise then I would have to say, yes, you are 100% correct! However, I don't read the English that way - and I consider myself a rather perspicacious individual (admirable modesty, eh?).
You are likely right that rescinding and reissuing may not necessarily invoke a penalty - however, I would still like to know if there is language in the contract that would require the Municipality to pay Plavchak a penalty should it, the Municipality, permanently rescind the contract. I realize you may not have seen the contract; but from your experience as a lawyer, is this a common practice, or at least a possibility?
Full disclosure: I am a registered government contractor, and I know how it works for me in dealing with the military.
Richard:
If the municipality were to terminate the contract solely for convenience, there might be a cancellation charge to cover demobilization and other expenses incurred by the contractor to date. I would also add that all of the discussion from the anonymous posters had focused on a penalty provision that they felt was going to be incurred if we did not award the contract on August 13.
Dave Franklin
"..I must with deepest appreciation acknowledge that Mr. Franklin has finally spoken with a professional voice, taking seriously the concern of his brother, Mr. Gideon."
Mr. Marion:
Thanks for the compliment, but I am not a lawyer - although I have studied "founder's law"; from 1760 to about 1840.
Frankly, based on your lucid writing style I am thinking that you are the lawyer! :)
Best Wishes,
RG
Mr. Franklin, I'm no lawyer, don't claimed to be one and have no idea whether a penalty clause existed or not. Something seems odd in your opinion of the matter and I'm asking politely if you could clarify your comment.
You wrote: "As I've indicated on this thread, I believe that the commissioners awarded the contract to preserve the project schedule and to preserve the municipality's right to recover liquidated damages from the contractor if it doesn't finish on time. That's the "penalty" that was discussed at the meeting and that's motivated the decision to move ahead with the contract - not to mention that the project would have had to be rebid, which would have also created more expense (and more delay) for the municipality."
So if I'm following this matter correctly, the commissioners awarded a bid which includes alternate #3 on August 13th. Which you claim they did primarily to keep the project on schedule and maybe recover any future damages... correct?
But now on August 26, they are going to rescind the August 13 contract and then reissue a new contract for the base specifications or bid... correct?
You also suggest that alternate will be bid seperately. Look at that item it looks like its a drainage issue and from my untrained eye something that needs to be done before decking.
So a guess my big question is how does this keep the project on track? Why less than 13 days after awarding a contract including #3 did they find they have to rescind #3?
Did someone not do their homework?
This is beginning to smell like business as usual here in Leboland. Rush in and approve something, because we have to. Then we'll sort it all out at a later time.
Lets say the rebid alternative 3 as you suggested and those bids come in higher than the one Plavchak gave in the Aug. 13 contract.
Do the commissioners then rescind the Aug 26th contract and ask Plavchak to re-accept the Aug 13th contract?
This whole escapade just doesn't make any sense to me, but then after following the high school boondoggle and speaking face-to-face with several of our commissioners, I'm certainly not surprised.
Mr. Franklin:
I want to make one last point here, then I'm going to take my wife out for ice cream.
I think we could all agree that a $150,000 penalty for not awarding a contract would be, shall we say, rather unusual. But let's assume one suspects such a thing exists in the contract; it would be a simple matter to read the contract to see if it were there. Unfortunately, the contract is not available for the "common man" (or woman) to read.
Believe it or not, I do see your point. But I have a hard time believing that the Commission would be so stupid as to agree to awarding a contract "a priori," at the risk of a penalty for not awarding it in the first place, and place language in said contract so stating!!!!! What I am thinking is that there may have been a rescission penalty of 150 large (that might have been what some of the anonymous posters meant).
Thanks for knocking this around with me - I appreciate it!
Blog readers: Mr. Franklin and I come at civic issues from two entirely different philosophical perspectives, but I do enjoy knocking around various subjects with him.
There is something very wrong here. It says right in the agenda, "The Municipality received a bid protest from Waller Construction regarding Alternate 3. After review of the protest, the Municipality has decided to rescind the original award..."
A PROTEST. Something irregular in the bidding process. As my good friend Dave Franklin says, "Stay tuned."
Elaine
Here's a novel idea that will undoubtedly make some of the Foxes nervous - go to the meeting, sign in, step up to the podium and ask all of these questions yourselves. It's really very easy.
Dave Franklin
Come on, folks...a swimming pool is just a basin filled with water. Much too much as been made of this. Good grief!
Elaine, you had this in your original post:
"Contract No. 1. General Construction Work
Low bidder: Plavchak Construction Company, Inc.
Base Bid: $1,490,800
Alternate 3 - Subsurface drainage at east end of deck: $119,100
Subtotal: $1,609,90"
Alternate 3 - Subsurface drainage... Doesn't that sound like something that goes in before the deck? Subsurface doesn't sound like it goes over the deck does it?
Mr. Franklin, first you seemed like you had the inside scoop on the commissioners bid plans and being an "expert" on the commision, I thought you might have the answer. That is meant to be a compliment. You at least engage in the public discussion. Wish you stayed away from snarky comments (others too) but hey you're here is more than we can say for our public servants.
As for your suggestion, going to the meetings and asking them. Been there, done that!
It been my experience that even face-to-face you won't get a straight answer. And when you present facts to back up your questions the response is "file an RTK."
Also, what is stopping one of our commissioners or managers responding here?
Unless it is for Executive Session, Dave.
Elaine
7:32 much too much has been made of this?
The pool is $925,000 over the original estimate. Plus they are including a $38,000 climbing wall off budget. Plus there will probably be a number of change orders and alterations before the project is completed.
So $4.5 milllion+ is one hell of an expensive water basin filled with water! Not a big deal... you buy it.
We are screwed!
Connie
And so continue the Franklin, Feller, Donnellan Follies. Don't touch that dial!
Is it time for an audit YET?
7:44, subsurface drainage is for runnoff from the hillside adjacent to the pool. It's to keep the pool from filling with mud and debris during heavy or extended precipitation.
9:03 wouldn't subsurface drains be things like french drains and the stormwater pipes that run underground from your house to the street?
I wiouldn't think these drains would be used to keep mud and debris out of the pool. Surface culverts and such would perform that. The subsurface drains I would think would be to designed to get excess water away from the pool and hillside though.
But regardless of what they are for, wouldn't you do subsurface work before doing surface work like decking?
12:01, good questions.
I'm just telling you what the paid professionals, Donnellan and Kelley said at the last meeting.
I don't have the answers. Maybe you can ask them yourself at tonights' meeting.
I'm not going, mainly because it is a waste. If its a question they're not prepared to answer the stock response is "we'll get back to you." Which they never do.
If its a question they don't want to answer the response is "file an RTK."
Even when you email directly with concerns or questions answers are seldom direct.
Appears a resident is suing over this issue: http://triblive.com/neighborhoods/alleghenyneighborhoods/alleghenyneighborhoodsmore/4595966-74/bid-pool-plavchak#axzz2d8jfOeDp
Don Allen got what he deserved.
Post a Comment